architecture – American Mastershttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters
A series examining the lives, works, and creative processes of outstanding artists.Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:56:02 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.5 About the Filmhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/charles-ray-eames-the-architect-and-the-painter-about-the-film/1921/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/charles-ray-eames-the-architect-and-the-painter-about-the-film/1921/#disqus_threadWed, 16 Nov 2011 17:34:42 +0000http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/?p=1921American Masters – Charles & Ray Eames: The Architect and the Painter presents the first film made about America’s most important and influential designers, Charles and Ray Eames, since their deaths in 1978 and 1988, respectively — and the only film that explores the link between their artistic collaboration and sometimes tortured marriage. Jason Cohn […]

]]>American Masters – Charles & Ray Eames: The Architect and the Painter presents the first film made about America’s most important and influential designers, Charles and Ray Eames, since their deaths in 1978 and 1988, respectively — and the only film that explores the link between their artistic collaboration and sometimes tortured marriage. Jason Cohn and Bill Jersey’s definitive documentary delves into the private world the Eameses created in their Renaissance-style, Venice Beach, California studio, where design history was born. Narrated by James Franco, the film premiered nationally Monday, December 19 as the 25th anniversary season finale of American Masters.

From 1941 to 1978, this husband-wife powerhouse brought unique talents to their partnership. He was an architect by training; she was a painter and sculptor. Together their work helped shape the second half of the 20th century and remains culturally vital and commercially popular today. Best known for their beautiful and functional, yet inexpensive furniture, most notably their signature molded plywood “Eames chair,” Charles and Ray’s influence on significant events and movements in post-World War II American life – from the development of modernism to the rise of the computer age – is less widely understood.

The Architect and the Painter crafts a fascinating, complex blueprint of two great American artists and provides a candid view of their emotional lives as they apply their genius to practical problems and innovation. The film draws extensively from a virgin cache of archival material, visually stunning films, love letters, photographs, and artifacts produced in mind-boggling volume during the hyper-creative epoch of the Eames Office. Critics may argue about how to delineate Charles and Ray’s respective roles in their prodigious design output, but American Masters reveals how they and the Eames Office designers actually dealt with questions of authorship and control. Interviews with Charles’s daughter Lucia, his grandson Eames Demetrios, Eames Office designers, director/screenwriter Paul Schrader, TED founder Richard Saul Wurman, noted architect Kevin Roche, design historians, and others guide viewers on an intimate voyage through the “Eames Era,” shining a light on the genuine legacy of their design – that which elevated aesthetic refinement and functionality to a higher plane.

The Eameses applied the same process of inquiry to large-scale exhibitions and their quirky, beautiful films, which pushed the envelope for communicating complex ideas to mass audiences. The Architect and The Paintertours their landmark house in the Pacific Palisades and incorporates clips from their films (“Tops”) and exhibitions for clients like IBM (“Powers of Ten”), Westinghouse, Polaroid, and the U.S. government (“The World of Franklin and Jefferson”). The technique known as “information overload,” was one of the most lasting Eamesian innovations, as seen in 1959’s Cold War project “Glimpses of the USA,” featuring thousands of images of American life projected simultaneously on seven enormous screens.

“This is a particularly personal project for me,” says Susan Lacy, series creator and executive producer of American Masters, “because I had the great privilege of knowing Ray and Charles Eames. They introduced me to the concept of design through their magical, whimsical and beautiful work – their artistic vision affected everything they touched. I am thrilled to have these true masters as part of American Masters.” This year the series earned its eighth Emmy® Award for Outstanding Primetime Non-Fiction Series in 11 years.

]]>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-image-gallery-of-the-suzhou-museum/1570/feed/8 Chronological Index of Pei’s Buildings and Projectshttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-chronological-index-of-peis-buildings-and-projects/1568/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-chronological-index-of-peis-buildings-and-projects/1568/#disqus_threadWed, 31 Mar 2010 15:31:50 +0000http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/?p=1568I.M. Pei has completed numerous buildings in the last 60 years aggregating an astounding body of international work. You may have set foot in one of his masterpieces without knowing it.

]]>I.M. Pei has completed numerous buildings in the last 60 years aggregating an astounding body of international work. Below, browse browse his projects chronologically. With a list of projects this large, it’s possible that you may have set foot in one of his masterpieces without knowing it.

]]>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-chronological-index-of-peis-buildings-and-projects/1568/feed/5 Clips & Scenes: I.M. Pei Creating The Suzhou Museum Gardenhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-building-china-modern-clips-scenes-i-m-pei-creating-the-suzhou-museum-garden/1812/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-building-china-modern-clips-scenes-i-m-pei-creating-the-suzhou-museum-garden/1812/#disqus_threadTue, 30 Mar 2010 21:48:15 +0000http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/?p=1812In the creation of the garden for the Suzhou Museum, the area most central to any Chinese building, I.M. Pei uses a variety of techniques to create a rock design that is both minimal and modern as well as a reflection of traditional Chinese aesthetic. A production of PACEM Productions, distribution by by Bullfrog Films […]

]]>In the creation of the garden for the Suzhou Museum, the area most central to any Chinese building, I.M. Pei uses a variety of techniques to create a rock design that is both minimal and modern as well as a reflection of traditional Chinese aesthetic. A production of PACEM Productions, distribution by by Bullfrog Films (www.bullfrogfilms.com).

]]>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-building-china-modern-clips-scenes-i-m-pei-creating-the-suzhou-museum-garden/1812/feed/1 Interview with Executive Producer/Producer Eugene B. Shirleyhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-interview-with-executive-producerproducer-of-i-m-pei-building-china-modern-eugene-b-shirley/1562/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-interview-with-executive-producerproducer-of-i-m-pei-building-china-modern-eugene-b-shirley/1562/#disqus_threadMon, 15 Mar 2010 19:09:15 +0000http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/?p=1562Executive Producer and Producer and Eugene B. Shirley, Jr. talks about the making of his thirteenth film with WNET.ORG. IHe discusses how he initially became interested in the work of I. M. Pei, the multiple trips to China needed to realize the film, and the unique challenges of long term documentary projects.

]]>Executive Producer and Producer and Eugene B. Shirley, Jr. talks about the making of his thirteenth film with WNET.ORG, I.M. Pei: Building China Modern. In this interview he discusses how he initially became interested in the work of Pei, the multiple trips to China needed to realize the film, and the unique challenges of long term documentary projects.

What first got you interested in doing a film of I.M. Pei?

The project traces back ten years – when PACEM, the company that I co-own with my sister Anne Shirley, wanted to do a film or series on China’s modern development. The issue we were interested in exploring was the tension between modernity and traditional Chinese culture. Problem was, we had an important theme but no story.

T’ing Pei, I.M. Pei’s eldest son – to whose memory the film is now dedicated – helped us find the story we were looking for in his father’s return to his ancestral home to build a modern museum in the ancient city of Suzhou. T’ing arranged for us to join his father and the rest of the design team on the first site visit in the spring of 2002 – and we followed the story as it unfolded over the next eight years.

The story of I.M. Pei designing and building the Suzhou Museum became the microcosm through which we could view the entire world of our theme.

And the story worked on so many levels – whether it was a matter of architecture, garden design, or Pei’s own personal story, the issue was one of bringing together old and new in way that moved forward without denigrating the past.

When did you first become aware of Pei?

In the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, I tried unsuccessfully to launch a series on postmodernism. The architectural historian Charles Jencks and the philosopher John B. Cobb, Jr. (both of whom play important interpretive roles in the Pei film) were key to that project.

John gave me the tools needed to do a better job of “reading” culture philosophically. Charles helped me interpret architecture – and broadened my awareness of the history of architectural form.

By 2002 when I had the opportunity to make a film with I.M. Pei, I already had a strong interpretive framework in place for using his story to examine some of the cultural tensions between modernity and tradition that I had been so interested in exploring.

While making the film, did you learn anything that surprised you about the subject?

Pei constantly surprised me.

I remember flying 16 hours to meet up with him in China – arriving at approximately the same time he did – only to find our crew, in their 30s, 40s and 50s, running throughout the day to stay up with him, when he was in his late 80s. It seemed he had extraordinary energy. And it seemed to be the case, too, among some of his Chinese contemporaries whom I also had the pleasure to meet – architects and developers.

I remember the first time we were in Suzhou in 2002 – following Mr. Pei was like following after an American rock star. There was the police escort. Tons of photographers and journalists (we were right in there with them, of course). And big crowds. How he could focus in the midst of all those people I’ll never know.

I remember accompanying Mr. Pei to the Four Seasons Hotel/Shanghai one time for lunch, in 2004 or ’05, and by chance a major conference of leading international business leaders was being held there – with bankers, heads of multi-national insurance companies, etc. Of course, no one was expecting Mr. Pei to walk through the lobby because no one knew he was in town. But as we entered the hotel and began to walk toward the restaurant, a receiving line spontaneously sprung up. Every one of the great and good shot to their feet just waiting to shake Mr. Pei’s hand and say a few words. (I know for a fact who these people were because I was standing right next to Mr. Pei and collected their business cards.)

And I was surprised at the way Mr. Pei so boldly took on landscaping the garden areas at the Suzhou Museum – such a difficult challenge, so late in his career, with so many risks. The risks of failure were very real. I think that some of the challenge, and the way Mr. Pei faced the challenges, comes through in the film.

Are there any interesting anecdotes about the filming or the interviewees?

It took something like 17 trips to China to make this project happen. Many trips had to take place at the last minute – and visas secured at a moment’s notice. Nothing like this could have been possible without the strong support of our colleagues and co-producing partners in Beijing.

We were very fortunate that one of our key consultants had had a major position at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing some years back and knew how to connect us in China. He directed us to what he said was the best organization in China to work with on these matters – the China Intercontinental Communication Center, or CICC as they are listed in the credits.

The group is organized under the Ministry of Information, and of course they were careful to make sure that we abided by Chinese law. Sometimes there were tensions, certainly. But the film simply could not have happened without them.

I forged many strong friendships with wonderful people at the CICC over the years who helped us out of tough spots over and over again. Given that we came into the project not knowing the culture, and that we were dealing with high-profile material – that is, Pei returning to China to build this museum – the CICC’s involvement was absolutely essential.

And they stayed with us throughout the course of what became an incredibly long and trying project. We wound up working together for nine full years on this project (including a year prior to when Pei became involved).

I was fundamentally interested in a theme – modernity and tradition – and using Pei’s story to illuminate that theme. So every choice I made was to try to bring this theme into sharp focus.

The first choice was to focus our story about modernity and tradition in China through the lens of I.M. Pei designing and building the Suzhou Museum. This wasn’t easy.

I fought and lost some very tough and expensive battles at the beginning of this project – because not all of my early collaborators on the China-based project I had initially launched wanted to focus on Pei’s story. It’s not that they didn’t appreciate Pei. It’s that they didn’t understand the filmic necessity of focusing a large theme through the lens of a highly specific story – and didn’t see how Pei’s story could do this.

I staked a lot on this choice and ruined some relationships as a result. But I thought that a film about China facing modernity couldn’t do any better than to look at this theme the way I.M. Pei would.

The second big choice was to ask Anne Makepeace to be director. I had directed the film myself for the first two-and-a-half years or so – with my long-time collaborator George Adams serving as Director of Photography. But I felt that the film needed a full-time producer – which I’m pretty good at – and a truly great director – which wasn’t me but it was Anne. Then George and Anne started working together as George stayed on as DP throughout.

The third big choice was to keep the project going when, years in, it had sapped all of our energy and resources and was proving remarkably difficult in ways we never foresaw. The darkest period for this project came after roughly five years.

The film was expensive and taking place half a world away. And every design or construction delay delayed us – in a way that we had no control over.

I made a big mistake thinking that funding a project like this would be relatively easy. It was in fact excruciatingly difficult.

Early on we found wonderful, generous, and unwavering support from our major sponsor the Miho Museum in Japan – and they remained behind us every step of the way. Co-Executive Producer Caroline Courtauld was fabulous and a big help throughout, as were members of our advisory board and board of consultants who played key roles at times. But no one expected the project to go on as long as it did. Or face the sheer number of challenges that a project must face when it goes on year after year after year in a foreign country.

Relationships of various kinds strained – as normal for a project that seemed to go on without end. At one point, Years Six and Seven, we had to augment the team, bring in some new energy, and push ahead. Brian Funck, editor and writer with Anne, was at the vanguard of that new energy

What were some of the obstacles in achieving your vision of the film?

Time. Eight years of production on top of two years of development took its toll.

Distance – our story was happening half a world away.

Money – there’s never enough for documentaries given all that must go into them. Short projects can make do – whatever the financial pain will all be over soon. Long projects are torture.

This begs the question of how the project survived and got completed in the end. In fact, tons of people stepped in at every step along the way – from the woman who loaned us the startup funds in 2002 to the lab that donated its digibeta deck to us in 2010.

This also says something about Mr. Pei – how everyone wanted to be a part of tipping their hats to him as it were. Artists and craftsmen and businesspeople and scholars of every stripe wanted to do what they could – not for the credit, but to join with others in drawing attention to what he has done and likely just to say thank you.

I’m thinking of that knife-blade edge at the East Wing of the National Gallery of Art that Mr. Pei designed. Four feet up from the ground the limestone is dulled and the color is nearly black from all the people – myself included – who have rubbed the edge.

Perhaps this film became for many, many people another way of rubbing the edge of creativity and design that Pei has bequeathed to us all.

Please describe your background credits, how maybe they led to this film.

This is the thirteenth film I’ve made with WNET – the other twelve as parts of stand-alone series. All dealt with big ideas – and this project is another of the big ideas that I’m passionate about.

I started off my career making films in the Soviet Union, and produced six films there (two stand-alones and one four-part series). Moving on to China seemed almost inevitable.

But whereas in the Soviet Union I was documenting something that was coming to an end, in China I’ve felt I was documenting something much more vital and rising up.

And having tried once to produce a series on postmodernism put me in a position to investigate how China was attempting to bring together modernity and tradition – in the person and work of I.M. Pei.

]]>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-interview-with-executive-producerproducer-of-i-m-pei-building-china-modern-eugene-b-shirley/1562/feed/5 Interview with Anne Makepeace, the Director/Writer of I.M. Pei: Building China Modernhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-interview-with-anne-makepeace-the-directorwriter-of-i-m-pei-building-china-modern/1559/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-interview-with-anne-makepeace-the-directorwriter-of-i-m-pei-building-china-modern/1559/#disqus_threadFri, 12 Mar 2010 20:07:10 +0000http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/?p=1559Anne Makepeace, who previously worked with American Masters as writer/producer/director of Robert Capa: In Love and War as well as Edward Curtis: Coming to Light, answers questions about the making-of I.M. Pei: Building China Modern. In this interview she talks about the challenges of filming in China, her creative process when interviewing subjects and documenting […]

When Eugene Shirley, the producer of I. M. Pei: Building China Modern, contacted me back in 2003 to ask I would be interested in directing a film about Pei, I was very excited about the idea. I had seen Pei’s pyramid at the Louvre and other buildings done by him – CAA in LA, the East Wing of the National Museum of Art – and was eager to find out more about the man behind these great works. Eugene had been directing as well as producing up until that time, but found that producing itself was more than full time, especially in China. I was very happy to be asked to take over that role.

While making the film, did you learn anything that surprised you about Pei?

I was amazed at the sheer number and variety of buildings Pei had designed and built. And I found the story of his exile from China very compelling. Pei left China in 1935 at age 17 to study engineering, intending to return home at the end of his studies. For decades his return was interrupted by war and revolution, keeping him in the United States for his whole adult life. Then at the age of 85, he was asked to design an art museum for his hometown city of Suzhou. The story of the “Return of the Native” was very compelling for me.

Are there any interesting anecdotes about the filming or the interviewees?

Filming in China presented huge challenges for the production. We were constantly shadowed by friendly but strict representatives of the Communist Party, including our translators, so we were not able to hear any negative points of view about the museum, which after all was extremely controversial in that it required destroying neighborhoods in an area protected by UNESCO, which had designated that part of Old Suzou as a World Heritage Site. When interviewing officials, we were required to adhere to a very strict list of questions. Filming Pei at the Louvre was a joy, however – he seemed very free and happy to be there, and that shoot provided an opening to the film that enabled audiences to enter into the story of tradition vs. modernism, our focus in China.

Please describe your approach to the film.

During interviews, I like to prepare a list of questions, but then to be spontaneous and open to following interesting threads that I may not have foreseen. I also like to get as much verité footage of everything that is happening around the subject of the film, and then to discover the story in the footage during editing.

What were some of the obstacles in achieving your vision of the film?

This was one of the rare films that I directed but did not produce, and Eugene’s and my visions were not always the same. I was more interested in the biographical and personal aspects of Pei’s life and how these influenced his design of the museum; while Eugene’s focus was very much on the theme of the film – tradition vs modernism – as reflected in the in the creation of the Suzhou museum. In the end, we created a film that we are both very proud of.

Please describe your background credits, how maybe they led to this film.

Eugene contacted me in 2003 after seeing my recently completed documentary, Robert Capa: In Love and War, which I had written, produced and directed for American Masters. Apparently, he liked what he saw there, and I had also been recommended to him by people at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and elsewhere. The Capa film, as well as my previous film on Edward S. Curtis, which was also broadcast on American Masters, gave him confidence that I could direct a strong film about an artist and his work.

]]>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-interview-with-anne-makepeace-the-directorwriter-of-i-m-pei-building-china-modern/1559/feed/1 Building China Modernhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-building-china-modern/1542/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/i-m-pei-building-china-modern/1542/#disqus_threadMon, 01 Feb 2010 04:00:41 +0000http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/current-season/i-m-pei-building-china-modern/1542/I.M. Pei has been called the most important living modern architect, defining the landscapes of some of the world’s greatest cities. A monumental figure in his field and a laureate of the prestigious Pritzker Architecture Prize, Pei is the senior statesman of modernism and last surviving link to such great early architects as Corbusier, Gropius, […]

]]>I.M. Pei has been called the most important living modern architect, defining the landscapes of some of the world’s greatest cities. A monumental figure in his field and a laureate of the prestigious Pritzker Architecture Prize, Pei is the senior statesman of modernism and last surviving link to such great early architects as Corbusier, Gropius, and Mies van der Rohe. Entering into the twilight of his career and well into his eighties, Pei returns to his ancestral home of Suzhou, China to work on his most personal project to date. He is commissioned to build a modern museum in the city’s oldest neighborhood which is populated by classical structures from the Ming and Qing dynasties. For the architect who placed the pyramid at the Louvre, the test to integrate the new with the old is familiar but still difficult. The enormous task is to help advance China architecturally without compromising its heritage. In the end, what began as his greatest challenge and a labor of sentiment, says Pei, ultimately becomes “my biography.”

American Masters’s I.M. Pei: Building China Modern follows Pei on this historic journey to define China’s architectural vision as it comes into its own on the world stage.

“I.M. Pei is an architectural poet – a living legend,” says Susan Lacy, series creator and executive producer of American Masters, a seven-time winner of the Emmy Award for Outstanding Primetime Non-Fiction Series. “He’s among the league of rare American masters whose artistic sensibilities have both provoked public debate and transformed our notions of what is possible, of how tradition can be honored in the 21st century.”

The film captures Pei as he forges an architectural language that brings together Western modernity and Eastern tradition into a current synthesis. After decades of living in the U.S. and amassing unprecedented international acclaim for his projects, Pei returns as a “foreigner” to his birth country to give a new direction for Chinese architecture in which history can live in the midst of change. In effect, Pei, who has contributed to America’s urban landscape during the height of its architectural and engineering power is now helping China do the same. Few architects have played such a critical dual role.

With an agenda of change, Pei inevitably enters into a crucible of conflict in Suzhou. For those concerned about the loss of traditional forms of architectural identity, he is too modern. For those who would simply bulldoze China’s past, he is too tradition-minded. Adding to the already complex assignment, he faces the controversy of displacing residents living at the museum site. To meet the design challenges, Pei draws on ideas that stretch far back within his own life and work – including a 1946 thesis project at Harvard, where he was taught abstract modern architecture. Throughout his education and career, Pei maintains his “impossible dream” to bring together modernity and traditional, regional influences (including nature) in his work. Eight years in the making, American Masters’ I.M. Pei: Building China Modern traces Pei’s pursuit of that dream and explores the defining conflicts of our age – the lure of the modern versus the pull of history. The result is a surprisingly revealing and intimate portrait of the man who set as his goal nothing less than the redefinition of architecture in modern China.

American Masters’ I.M. Pei: Building China Modern is a co-production of PACEM Distribution International, LLC and the Independent Television Service (ITVS) in association with South Carolina ETV (SCETV), the China Intercontinental Communication Center (CICC), and The New River Education Fund, Inc. Eugene B. Shirley, Jr. is producer. Anne Makepeace is director. Eugene B. Shirley, Jr. and Anne Shirley are executive producers. Caroline Courtauld and Tom Parry are co-executive producers. Anne Makepeace and Brian Funck are writers. Polly Kosko is executive-in-charge of production for SCETV. Sally Jo Fifer is executive producer for ITVS. Susan Lacy is the series creator and executive producer of American Masters.

American Masters is made possible by the support of the National Endowment for the Arts and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding for American Masters is provided by Rosalind P. Walter, The Blanche & Irving Laurie Foundation, Jack Rudin, Elizabeth Rosenthal in memory of Rolf W. Rosenthal, The André and Elizabeth Kertész Foundation, Michael & Helen Schaffer Foundation, and public television viewers.